Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lufthansa Flight 592


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Lufthansa Flight 592

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOTNEWS and no WP:PERSISTENCE A google news archive search shows all articles on the hijacker were written at the time. The article even says he surrendered without incident. What's notable about that?...William 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Absolutely not notable.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on what? --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. As evidenced by the sources cited in the article, this incident has received ample and wide coverage in reliable sources. Ergo, it is notable. --Lambiam 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The news coverage is routine. Secondly to quote an FBI negotiator 'We didn't do anything different.' How is it notable again?...William 22:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps precisely because he did everything by the book that the negotiator who spoke these words (not an FBI agent but NYPD detective Misino), who received international acclaim for his handling of the case, used it as an illustration in his book: The case is also treated in detail in a section of:   --Lambiam 12:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an aviation accident this fails the relevant standards, but as a crime I believe it passes notablity. Note that the negiotator's handling of the incident is held up as an example in a 2011 book by the Harvard Business Review, it is also mentioned in several recent books on terrorism, including Oxford's Terrorism: Documents of International and Local Control series. I believe there is sufficent evicence to demonstrate that the WP:GNG is met. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep None of the other hijacking articles with questionable notability are in AfD and I feel that the subject meets the notability requirements.Andrew Kurish (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE as well as (obviously) WP:GNG. Not only has the coverage been way beyond the scope of "routine" (sports events, wedding announcements), but in addition to the long term coverage found by Lambian, it was very easy for me to find more coverage years after the event.  --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, substantially per Bushranger. Also, links by Oakshade are persuasive. Lord Roem (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.